Dispute Resolution in “Essential Services”:: Procedural Experimentation in Canada

Abstract

In its handling of public sector pay, the present British Government appears to have given higher priority to the minimisation of public expenditure than to the avoidance of disputes. It has on several occasions “taken” (or not deterred other public sector employers from “taking”) lengthy stoppages rather than agree to refer pay disputes to arbitration, largely on two grounds; first, that additional money to finance any enhanced award was not available, and, secondly, that to do so would be to abdicate responsibility for a major element of public expenditure. Further, it has sought the removal from public sector disputes procedures of provisions allowing either party unilateral access to arbitral bodies, though by no means entirely successfully as the gas industry and other examples illustrate. On the other hand, its policy of tight cash limits, external borrowing limits, rate‐capping and other measures have had a substantial effect on reducing the levels of public sector pay settlements. Paradoxically, however, the two public services widely regarded internationally as amongst the “most essential”, the police and fire services, have both benefited from now relatively well‐entrenched formulae which have generated pay increases for these groups significantly above most other public sector groups. The new national agreement on ambulance staff appears to offer similar prospects for another group of “essential” workers.

Citation

Goodman, J. and Chattin, J. (1986), "Dispute Resolution in “Essential Services”:: Procedural Experimentation in Canada", Employee Relations, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055068